Is the World on a Downward Trajectory?

[PureX]

There is no end result to capitalism as an economic system but total collapse. Anyone that has ever played the Monopoly Game should understand this. In fact, it's why the Monopoly Game was created (soon after the '29 crash and during the Great Depression).

Unfortunately, because science and industrial mass-production has improved the human condition over the last 200 years, we all think that capitalism did it and so are unwilling to question it's true effects, and it's ultimate result.

We need to get over this false allegiance to capitalism, soon, or we will find ourselves at the inevitable end of the big monopoly game.

 

[Vee]

T

In any objective measure of human development, humans in general are far better off today than any time in past history (and this is true on a fairly continuous basis since 1900s). One can choose any measure of human development...but if one combines three basic quantifiable metric as:-
1) Is a person who is born living longer and healthier?
2) Is a person being born better educated?
3) Is a person being born has more disposable income to spend?

.

From what I keep learning, although many people today live longer, they also tend to be sicker; so longevity is not necessarily related to quality of life.
I believe we have more access to information, but that's not always translated into a better education. In certain parts of the world children are finally going to school and that's great. Those are the ones getting better educated. At the same time I'm under the impression that in the developed world education isn't improving. At best it stagnated.
A for disposable income, it looks like as usual the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is mostly disappearing and the majority of those who used to be middle class are joining the poor. I don't want to be negative, but things don't look very rosy...

 

[RestlessSoul]

I read recently that 50% of the total anthropogenic greenhouse gases released in history, has been in the 25 years since the 1997 Kyoto treaty. We’re ****ed, basically.

 

[Ella S.]

We need to stop pretending that the world is progressing towards a utopia and that our current way of life is sustainable.

In reality, the US, Russia, and China are all heading towards politically extreme forms of authoritarianism and international megacorporations are causing global inequality.

On top of these political threats, we're facing catastrophic climate change.

There's a reason why the Doomsday Clock is the closest to midnight that it's ever been. These issues can be mitigated if we address them right now but they've only gotten this bad because people don't want to acknowledge these problems or do anything to fix them.

It's already too late to undo much of the damage we've done to the climate or the harm done by these entities. We are still not really doing anything about them and they continue to grow worse every year. I'm beginning to doubt that humanity will take these threats seriously before it's too late.

There's nothing I can do about it, though.

 

[blü 2]

The problem is that your metrics are based on the individual person, and not on humanity as a whole.

Why doesn't it speak for humanity "as a whole"? Within any society there's always a top and a bottom, and the bottom has risen steadily, even if not as fast as the top of the top, no?

It's also based on humans, alone, and not on life on Earth as a whole.

Yes, we have a whole world of remedial work to do, and it's hard to see how the global warming ─ and plastics pollution and so on through a substantial list ─ we've caused is going to help our progress or that of our environment and earth's critters generally. But at the least there's awareness and some action there.

And it's also based on physical well-being as opposed to meta-physical well-being even though well-being is a meta-physical cognitive experience.

I'd say throughout my life there's been moral progress, certainly in the West, but more generally too. Trump is a reminder of how fragile such things can be, but I'm optimistic (perhaps because the alternative is too grim to think about).

 

[MikeF]

DISCLAIMER - any assessments of "better off" and "worse off" are projections humans make onto reality; reality fundamentally is what it is, and it is important to acknowledge that up front. I'm going to set that aside for the remainder of this post because humans just love projecting their value judgements onto everything. I just wanted to remind us all that this is what we're doing, and that the world simply is.

With that out of the way, it's a bit of a peeve of mine that humans often talk about "the world" as if it only consists of humans. The world does not revolve around humans. And the moment one starts realizing and accepting this, the picture painted is extremely bleak. Humans have kicked off a sixth mass extinction event on this planet.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Humans are directly responsible for causing our planet to spiral into a sixth mass extinction event.

See - The sixth mass extinction and the future of humanity - Population Matters - for a basic primer. This doesn't get talked about enough, except among academics in ecology and conservation. For a bigger and bleaker picture, see also - World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice - that covers the full cost of so-called "human development" and the massive check that will be coming due (and is already coming due).

Aren't you projecting your value judgements when you imply that a mass extinction event is necessarily a bad thing?

If reality is fundamentally 'what is', it seems to me that life is indifferent to the existence of any particular species. As a matter of fact, one might consider it to be a human projection to separate life into species. If all life on earth originated from the same life form, a life form with the intrinsic imperatives to (1) survive and (2) reproduce, can we not think of all of life as being a single organism? To survive, this organism differentiates itself to exploit many different types of environments, as well as to respond successfully to ever changing environments. Some differentiated aspects of the meta-organism 'Life' make certain environments habitable to more complex aspects of the meta-organism 'Life', but no particular differentiated form is more or less important in and of themselves.

All that matters is which forms meet the imperative that some aspect of the meta-organism survives and reproduces, and as the planet experiences perpetual change, the meta-organism 'Life' must perpetually change.

 

[JDMS]

Aren't you projecting your value judgements when you imply that a mass extinction event is necessarily a bad thing?

Mass extinction is not "good" for almost any living being on earth, and its not because of value judgements about the sanctity of speciation.

Mass extinction is bad because ecological niches dominated by certain highly specialized life forms will suddenly be unfilled, and it will take so long for another lifeform to take their place that it will lead to further die-off. For example, highly specialized pollinators of all kinds of species are dying, which is leading to plants and crops dying, which is leading to the further extinction of other living things and is making life harder for humans too.

Essentially, extinction events are a net-negative for most living things.

 

[MikeF]

Mass extinction is not "good" for almost any living being on earth, and its not because of value judgements about the sanctity of speciation.

Mass extinction is bad because ecological niches dominated by certain highly specialized life forms will suddenly be unfilled, and it will take so long for another lifeform to take their place that it will lead to further die-off. For example, highly specialized pollinators of all kinds of species are dying, which is leading to plants and crops dying, which is leading to the further extinction of other living things and is making life harder for humans too.

Essentially, extinction events are a net-negative for most living things.

You have missed the point of my post. You describe the extinction event as a net-negative for *most* living things. What I am suggesting is all living things are the same organism. All that matters is that any aspect of life continue to survive and reproduce, the specific aspects do not matter. Historically there are all sorts of events that have impacted life, and fortunately for life, none have been so overwhelming as to kill off all aspects of the organism 'Life'.

Of course we care about our particular prospects, but that would be the human bias that @Quintessence referenced. The organism life would be indifferent to any one human beings preferences.

 

[JDMS]

All that matters is that any aspect of life continues to survive and reproduce, the specific aspects do not matter.

That is also a value judgment. You are claiming that all that matters is that life continues to survive, which is a claim you make, not an objective fact.

"Life" does not value its own existence, "life" is not aware of itself nor does it have a goal (unless you are taking a spiritual or religious stance that gives the concept of life or progress a purpose and awareness, which you haven't expressed).

The only thing that gives the continuation of life its importance is living beings, like humans. So yes, it will always come down to a value judgment.

 

[MikeF]

That is also a value judgment. You are claiming that all that matters is that life continues to survive, which is a claim you make, not an objective fact.

"Life" does not value its own existence, "life" is not aware of itself nor does it have a goal (unless you are taking a spiritual or religious stance that gives the concept of life or progress a purpose and awareness, which you haven't expressed).

The only thing that gives the continuation of life its importance is living beings, like humans. So yes, it will always come down to a value judgment.

Hmmm. What I am saying is that from what we observe the process of life appears to exhibit an inherent imperative to survive and reproduce, and as a survival mechanism life employs built in differentiation techniques that enable life to exploit multiple environments and to adapt to the continually changing conditions on earth. No one particular form appears to be preferred, just that forms continue to reproduce in all possible environments.

It's an observation, not a personal preference.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, the environment is heading downhill.
Mass extinctions loom large.

 

[JDMS]

Hmmm. What I am saying is that from what we observe the process of life appears to exhibit an inherent imperative to survive and reproduce, and as a survival mechanism life employs built in differentiation techniques that enable life to exploit multiple environments and to adapt to the continually changing conditions on earth. No one particular form appears to be preferred, just that forms continue to reproduce in all possible environments.

It's an observation, not a personal preference.

That's not a position supported solely by science, though.

It seems as though life strives to survive because highly deadly or detrimental mutations are not spread as readily as mutations that enhance survivability. But despite that, harmful mutations occur far more readily. Harmful mutations occur thousands of times more often than beneficial ones in any given generational period.

This is natural selection. It's not about "preference", "desire", "what matters" at all. It's random chance. It's just that the failed attempts aren't around to talk about it.

 

[soulsurvivor]

...Indeed given the current trends your future descendants will be far far better off than you....

So you are saying climate change is not a big deal and you are sure it will be solved without any problem?

 

[Quintessence]

Aren't you projecting your value judgements when you imply that a mass extinction event is necessarily a bad thing?

Obviously, and I said as much with the DISCLAIMER at the very front of that post. I guess I should have bold faced, underlined, and mega-enlarged that too? Here it is again since it was missed the first time:

DISCLAIMER - any assessments of "better off" and "worse off" are projections humans make onto reality; reality fundamentally is what it is, and it is important to acknowledge that up front. I'm going to set that aside for the remainder of this post because humans just love projecting their value judgements onto everything. I just wanted to remind us all that this is what we're doing, and that the world simply is.

To add, this all includes life being a good/bad thing. Life is. But again, there's really not much point to taking this level of impartiality because that's not how humans operate.

 

[sayak83]

So you are saying climate change is not a big deal and you are sure it will be solved without any problem?

Climate change, if allowed to go unchecked, will cause significant damages to humans and the world ecosystems. But I see no reason why we cannot lessen the damages through concerted action and transition to green technologies.
My point is simple:-
There exists many many grave threats to future prosperity that have to be tackled. But this situation is no different than any time in the past when there were many threats then as well. We have to resolve and navigate through these threats in the same way (and hopefully even more skillfully than in the past) as we have done earlier. The past record however shows that the human world has been in an unmistakably upward trajectory in terms of human development for the past 100-130 years based on certain reasonably good indicators.

 

[soulsurvivor]

But this situation is no different than any time in the past when there were many threats then as well.

Exactly. The situation is not different than it has been before. And we have needed to be saved before when those threats appeared and we need to be saved again now.

In those days the Saviors were people like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus. Now we await a new Savior. As you say, it is not that different.

I am not sure what your point is - are you saying we never needed those previous Saviors like Rama, Krishna, Jesus? That we don't need any new Saviors because you are quite comfortable in our ability to solve problems without any guidance from unnecessary Saviors like Jesus?

 

[sayak83]

Exactly. The situation is not different than it has been before. And we have needed to be saved before when those threats appeared and we need to be saved again now.

In those days the Saviors were people like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus. Now we await a new Savior. As you say, it is not that different.

I am not sure what your point is - are you saying we never needed those previous Saviors like Rama, Krishna, Jesus? That we don't need any new Saviors because you are quite comfortable in our ability to solve problems without any guidance from unnecessary Saviors like Jesus?

Actually no. We negotiated the threats (like fascism,colonialism, great depression, food security, virulent diseases like the plague malaria AIDS etc) ourselves through collective human effort and ingenuity. Nobody needed to save us. We developed and implemented our own solutions to the problems we faced. That is what we will do in the future as well.

Yes saviors are never needed. And they never saved us from anything ever anyways.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Climate change, if allowed to go unchecked, will cause significant damages to humans and the world ecosystems. But I see no reason why we cannot lessen the damages through concerted action and transition to green technologies.
My point is simple:-
There exists many many grave threats to future prosperity that have to be tackled. But this situation is no different than any time in the past when there were many threats then as well. We have to resolve and navigate through these threats in the same way (and hopefully even more skillfully than in the past) as we have done earlier. The past record however shows that the human world has been in an unmistakably upward trajectory in terms of human development for the past 100-130 years based on certain reasonably good indicators.

Climate change - let's call it an emergency - is already here. The damage is unavoidable. I'm not sure we've ever faced an existential threat like this one. I admire your optimism though.

 

[sayak83]

No, I don't think it is. The well-being of humanity as a whole is very often at odds with the well-being of any particular individual. What's good for the one is not necessarily good for the many. And what's good for the many is not necessarily going to be good for everyone among the many.
Well, that's not true, is it. I mean we could at least say that the continuation of life as it exists on Earth would be good for life as it exists on Earth. And yet we have witnessed and participated in the extinction of many thousands of life forms in the last century that had existed for thousands of centuries on the Earth, prior. We are, in fact, in the middle of a massive extinction event that may even culminate with our own extinction. And yet you seem to be assuming that because we all have a cell phone, now, life is better than it's ever been.
I didn't say "spiritual", I said "meta-physical". Meaning; in the realm of cognitive understanding. And to be honest, I think in that realm the well-being of humanity has decreased greatly, as we are becoming more and more aware of just how stupid, selfish, greedy, and mean-spirited we really are on the whole. And it's going to get worse, because right now we are still trying hard to deny and ignore this about ourselves, even though we are beginning to accept this about each other. But sooner or later it's going to sink in that we are the others, too. And they are us. That we are ALL this way. And we're really not going to like facing that reality.

But it's a reality we really need to face, and soon, if we want to have any hope of changing it, and ourselves, in time to avoid being part of that great extinction.

The continued efforts of COP 27 and the upcoming COP 15 shows that while the pace of progress is not ideal, there is nevertheless much progress being made in real time to address both climate change and global biodiversity loss. Based on the trends I am seeing as of now, I will predict that the drivers of climate change and biodiversity loss (fossil based energy, and population and consumption driven growth in resource extraction) will flatten out between 2060 - 2080. We want to move the flattening to 2060 rather than 2080 and want to minimize the damage between now and the transition future...and for this global effort is needed. But it is doable and the worse case scenarios of ecological collapse or rapid ice sheet loss do not seem very likely based on the science.

On your other point.... In the semi-mythological account of Buddha's life it is shown that as a prince he had the maximally materially utopian life and yet found it lacking for his metaphysical well being...and thus began his search for enlightenment. I am in 100% agreement with you that even if we transform the world into a Star Trek heaven, it will not create the necessary and sufficient conditions for human eudaimonia. The current focus on material need fulfillment will not deliver the expected results because it cannot. But it was merely 100-150 years ago that most of the world was dreadfully poor, with half of all children dying of disease and many women dying at childbirth. It will take generational time for society in general to shift from a focus on "my own need-fulfillment because tomorrow I can be dead" to a more holistic and long-term view of constructive development of humanity in physical, material, ecological and spiritual space. Hopefully the society we see today is not a pinnacle, but a mere stepping stone for further deep transitions to come over the many thousands of years that lie in its future.

However this thread is my opinion on a more limited argument made by followers of eschatological religions in that the world today is careering towards doom and destruction due to Godlessness etc. and a savior figure prophesized in a holy book will be coming soon to make everything all right.

 

[sayak83]

Climate change - let's call it an emergency - is already here. The damage is unavoidable. I'm not sure we've ever faced an existential threat like this one. I admire your optimism though.

We can discuss this further. Here is what the future is going to look like over a thousand year time span given the CO2 emissions happening now.
Ask me anything on Climate and Energy
But people are already developing technologies that can suck CO2 from air. So on the long term it is possible that we can actually decrease the CO2 levels to prevent Greenland Ice sheets from melting.